221–230 of 1001 posts
> “[W]e cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,” This seems to be the standard
After all, it's almost assuredly the case that at least some Signal users are actively plotting violence. Yet end-to-end encryption by definition makes it impossible for Signal to identify that content.
Every single thing that has happened with Parler was foreseeable and forseen on the day it was announced. It was never about free speech, and everyone knew that.
Reading Amazon's reasoning, tech companies are basically setting a standard that if you want to have user-generated content, you must have professional moderators. This seems like it will be a barrier to innovation.
> “[W]e cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,” This seems to be the standard
Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels like it's getting more murky than that. - Should we be okay with Facebook censoring these groups? - Should we be okay with Google censoring search results? - Should we be okay with Apple censoring apps? - Should we be okay with AWS censoring websites? - Should we be okay with Go…
I mean...that image alone. "Violence works. Make them afraid", accompanied with text then saying "How about make them hang?", and showing lawmakers hiding in the Capital.
The fact it's a third party forum that these terrorist threats and planning are taking place doesn't really change the fact it's still facilitating terrorism.
It must feel pretty surreal to be someone that is constantly moving to different communication apps and instantly finding them pulled by anyone and everyone. We've seen an escalation of this from higher-level platforms (obviously Twitter can ban an account if they desire) to medium-level platforms (I suppose Apple gets to pick what I can do on my own phone even if it feels a bit wrong), but I'm curious if this will a…
I think what will be interesting to watch is how the government responds with legislation/mandates.
Will the government require they can ask for people be removed as customers from certain companies? Or require companies share data about customers with the government? Or give the government a backdoor API?
In the name of using it for good, in some ways it makes sense. Then, how does one trust the government to only use the tools for good - and who judges what "good" is?
If a 17 year old gets the keys to a Ferrari to only drive to school at 35mph, can they be trusted with that responsibility?
Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels like it's getting more murky than that. - Should we be okay with Facebook censoring these groups? - Should we be okay with Google censoring search results? - Should we be okay with Apple censoring apps? - Should we be okay with AWS censoring websites? - Should we be okay with Go…
If Amazon and Parker havnt commented, how can an email be quoted?
Is Amazon monitoring the content of all the services on its platform?
While my first impression is that this looks like the US turning into China, the fact that large scale private industry is doing this in apparent coordination with political forces make it seem more fascist than commie. Maybe Trump really did usher fascism into the US. What a pity.
I've read comments saying, "if you don't like Apple's policies, build a new smartphone." Are these people aware that that the same type of argument lead to the creation of parler: "if you don't like twitter censorship, build a new platform". It will be built. What then? At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology.